Three options exist for developing a governance assessment framework:
Very few governance assessment frameworks have been developed solely for a particular country; rather, the most well-known governance assessment frameworks are applied to a number of countries without adaptation to specific country circumstances. Any democratic governance index, national or cross-country comparative study may work as a template for developing a democratic governance assessment framework. Frameworks also are available that have been specifically developed for self-assessments.
This option has several advantages:
However, there are some disadvantages, the most serious being that the framework may not be based on concepts and attributes of governance shared by national stakeholders; does not reflect the most pressing governance challenges and governance deficits in a particular country; and may not be viewed as legitimate by the wider public. Some of these shortcomings may be addressed through adaptations of the framework.
This approach was adopted by the Government of Mongolia, where it applied International IDEA’s Citizen Assessment of Democracy (hyperlink) but broadened the framework to include other existing governance frameworks and added new governance attributes determined and agreed by Mongolian civil society and government (http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs07/DGI-Mongolia.pdf). The adaptation was largely achieved by dividing indicators into core and satellite indicators.
This has the potential advantage of being based on a nationally agreed conceptualization of what governance means for key national stakeholders in a country, provided it is based on broad stakeholder consultations and/or pre-surveys. This also ensures that the framework is based on national characteristics of democratic governance, that it is contextually specific and grounded, and that it promotes local ownership among key stakeholders. However, the disadvantage with a tailor-made framework is that cross-country comparison or discernment of trends may be difficult. This can be modified by including some key comparative indicators. Developing a new framework also may be more resource-intensive in order to arrive at an operational framework that can be effectively applied, especially in terms of reaching agreement on the key dimensions of governance and its attributes by national stakeholder groups.